Bill Miller Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) I reviewed some other photos and now wish to retract my foot caught on the antenna comment.It is still a foot though! Your 100% correct, Floyd. I am going to attempt to explain what is wrong with the photo interpretation that some have made who believed it to be JFK's hand. To start with as I have already mentioned - JFK's arm on the Zapruder film fell limp when his brain became ripped to shreds as the bullet passed through his skull, thus there is no evidence that Kennedy had limb control once that happened. I also mentioned that with the President's head in the First Lady's lap - JFK could not have reached the location above the seat with his arm bent at that angle. But there is much more to show ... 1) Let's start with what some think is the palm side of JFK's hand laying on the seat and what's wrong with that notion. The limo had leather seats and they were not made of some new space aged foam that engulfs what ever lays against it. If what people see is a wrist and palm, then they might ask themselves why is so much of it missing as if it has sunken into the top of what they think is the rear seat? (see line C2) And if this is the top of the rear seat, then why is it higher that the top edge of the rear seat clearly seen to our right of line B between the area in question and Hill's body ... is it not because the two are not part of the seat, but rather one of them is the underside of Hill's shoe sole? The latter seems to be the only logical conclusion. 2) Next is the alleged fingers. Has not someone wondered why they are so dark when the alleged palm and wrist are so brightly illuminated? (see lines A1 and C1) Could it be that you are seeing the heel underside of Hill's shoe which does not reflect light like the well shined sides of Hill's shoes? I ask that people hold their hand out in front of them and those whose fingers form a nice perfect arch appearence to please post a photo of your hand for I know of no human being having such a set of fingers. Having said this ... the December 14th edition of POST Magazine shows a continual arched shape which is still somewhat present even in extreme blow-up such as the image being used in this respose. Look at the base of line A1 and note a elongated rectangled dark area. What that is is where the heel of the shoe turns downward at a right angle to where less light is illuminating it compared to the underside of the heel and sole of the shoe. There certainly is no logical explanation for JFK's hand to have darkened fingers when his alleged palm and thumb is so well lit. 3) Next, look at line B. As I said before ... to our right of line B there is the top edge of the seat, but note that to our left of line B there is nothing but a white space and no seat edge. If we are looking at the palm side of JFK's hand and wrist where it meets his suit jacket, then where is the edge of the top of the seat ??? Could it be that the white space is still part of the illuminated side of Clint Hill's shined shoe leather, thus its being washed out against the illuminated trunk of the limo? I would think this to be the most logical observation because if it is not, then one has a manipulated photo where the top edge of the seat has been removed from the image, thus this photo is also unreliable. (see illustration below) 4) The reasons why (A1, C1, and D) are all dark is because they are made up of a different substance than the sides of the shoe, thus they do not reflect light in the same manner. The idea that what is seen as a hand has come from an illusion and not thinking the image through in a step by step manner. I hope that after some of the points I have made have sunk in ... that everyone will better see how the image could not be a hand, but rather Clint Hill's shoe. The rear seat didn't suck up half of JFK's wrist and hand, nor were JFK's fingers scorched during the ride from Love Field. What has happened is someone made an observation from a poor Yarborough print and didn't think the sensibility of their interpretation through before starting a thread over it. Bill Miller A good original might show the cufflinks holding together the gap in the sleeve seen in Miller. Uh, if thats a shirt cuff it is turned at least 1/2 a turn from where it should be, which would be BEHIND HILLS FOOT! LOL! Jack just thinks things up - he doesn't bother to think them through. Bill Miller Edited July 13, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) Craig Lamson from #208: "The fingers don't appear to be even close to the second chrome strip but rather just resting on the down slope from the bubble top ledge. You dont see the fingertips because they are hidden by the top edge of the lower chome strip. Too long, I dont think so. More like a silly CT's run amuck." "Shadow? What shadow? None there. A reflection from Hill knuckles...yes. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all that rot ya know. And yes the angles do work." So... reduced to black and white - these dark areas on the chrome strip have nothing to do with the fingertips - but have everything to do with the knuckles, up above. I'll have to consider that. Thanks for your input. (Photo removed to recover posting space.) Edited August 14, 2006 by JL Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Craig Lamson from #208:"The fingers don't appear to be even close to the second chrome strip but rather just resting on the down slope from the bubble top ledge. You dont see the fingertips because they are hidden by the top edge of the lower chome strip. Too long, I dont think so. More like a silly CT's run amuck." "Shadow? What shadow? None there. A reflection from Hill knuckles...yes. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all that rot ya know. And yes the angles do work." So... reduced to black and white - these dark areas on the chrome strip have nothing to do with the fingertips - but have everything to do with the knuckles, up above. I'll have to consider that. Thanks for your input. Thats correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) The idea that what is seen as a hand has come from an illusion and not thinking the image through in a step by step manner. I hope that after some of the points I have made have sunk in ... that everyone will better see how the image could not be a hand, but rather Clint Hill's shoe. The rear seat didn't suck up half of JFK's wrist and hand, nor were JFK's fingers scorched during the ride from Love Field. What has happened is someone made an observation from a poor Yarborough print and didn't think the sensibility of their interpretation through before starting a thread over it.Bill Miller[/b] Bill Miller[/b] Thanks, Bill. You did a very good job of supporting your position. You misrepresent the history of this thread, however. I created this thread to demonstrate that the "shoe" in the Miller photo was in fact drawn-in, something I'd suspected for years. Whether it was drawn over a shape that really was a foot was not my original point. Only afterwards, after noticing what appeared to be a serrated edge like knuckles and what seemed to be lines like fingers in the "heel" part of the shoe in the Yarborough Exhibit, did Jack say he thought it was a hand and did I offer my support. I'm still confused about certain elements of the photo. Is that an antenna sticking out from the sock area? If so, where did that antenna come from? Would a black sock really show up white, not just on its edge, but over its entire visible surface? Could Clint Hill really contort his body to such an extent? Did Clint Hill really contort his body to such an extent, before they'd made the left turn from Stemmons and before he'd lost his balance? I don't know. While it makes sense that it is Hill's foot--it certainly looks more like a shoe on the better scans--it could be something else as well. What, I'm not sure. At this point, I would agree that it is most probably Hill's shoe. I think we can all learn from this thread. Some of us, including myself, should probably be less imaginative when it comes to interpreting photos. Others, however, should be more open-minded and be more controlling of their knee-jerk responses. Rather than look at the Yarborough Exhibit, or go back to the original Sat. Post article, some blindly defended the Miller photo as they knew it, with the drawn-in foot, and insisted it was printed from the original negative. A very prominent expert on the photo evidence responded to my questions by insisting that the Dallas Morning News version of the photo and the Saturday Evening Post version of the photo were the same image, and that if one of the two had been altered, it was the Post's version. I think we all now understand this isn't true. Keep up the good work. I'm still hoping for a day when you, Lamson, White, and Healy will agree on something. Edited July 13, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 (edited) I'm still confused about certain elements of the photo. Is that an antenna sticking out from the sock area? Yes, check the WH garage photos or maybe the Croft photo for signs of retractable antenna mounts. If so, where did that antenna come from? I believe they were retractable. look just behind the corner of Jackie's seat and there appears to be another antenna mount. NIX FILM CLIP CROFT PHOTO CROP Would a black sock really show up white, not just on its edge, but over its entire visible surface? It can show up white on film just as Hill's coat could did. It's caused from the angle of reflection. I also think that you see the sock as all white, but some is the sides of the shoe and the photo has been washed out in pplaces when the print was made. While it makes sense that it is Hill's foot--it certainly looks more like a shoe on the better scans--it could be something else as well. What, I'm not sure. At this point, I would agree that it is most probably Hill's shoe. Yes, someone somewhere tried to better bring out the shoe by retouching the photo in order to make it more understandable to its readers and that is why one version seems to have a drawn in foot. Keep up the good work. I'm still hoping for a day when you, Lamson, White, and Healy will agree on something. I think we all agree that there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK, just that some of us feel that are research should be more thorough and be done in a responsable fashion. Bill Miller Edited July 14, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 'Bill Miller' wrote: I'm still confused about certain elements of the photo. Is that an antenna sticking out from the sock area? Yes, check the WH garage photos or maybe the Croft photo for signs of retractable antenna mounts. [...] If they're retractable antenna can you explain how they attach the bubble to the limo? Appears what you think is a retractable antenna sits squarely on top of the bubble platform, heh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 (edited) If they're retractable antenna can you explain how they attach the bubble to the limo? Appears what you think is a retractable antenna sits squarely on top of the bubble platform, heh? David, maybe you'd care to post some Parkland photos with the top on the car and we'll see if the antenna mounts are still visible or not. I mean after all .. there is an antenna raised near the seat in the Newman and Miller photos. Bill Miller Edited July 14, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Stephens Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Bill The antenna is the one pictured in your above post. I have saw a better copy and you can clearly see the antenna mount on Jackie's side of the limo, it's blurred in your photo. When I checked against this photo you can tell that it is the antenna on Jackie's side, just a coincidence that it appears to come out of Hills sock. Check the distance from the far back corner of the limo up to the antenna on the Miller photo and compare to the distance in the above posted photo. Or maybe it's one of those shoe phones, like on the old show Get Smart, but I don't think they had a retractable antenna. The shoe laces were metalized with silver and provided excellent reception. . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 (edited) BillThe antenna is the one pictured in your above post. I have saw a better copy and you can clearly see the antenna mount on Jackie's side of the limo, it's blurred in your photo. When I checked against this photo you can tell that it is the antenna on Jackie's side, just a coincidence that it appears to come out of Hills sock. Check the distance from the far back corner of the limo up to the antenna on the Miller photo and compare to the distance in the above posted photo. Well, in the Miller photo there does appear to be an antenna on JFK's side of the car, as well and Hill's foot is hooked around it. You see, the Newman photo has Jackie's antenna and the one in question almost lined up perfectly. The difference being is that Jackie's antenna is a bit shorter and the top of JFK's antenna is a tad forward and when traveling into the wind - an antenna should bend slighty backwards if anything else. It's just one of those flukes that both line up almost perfectly. Bill Edited July 14, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 BillThe antenna is the one pictured in your above post. I have saw a better copy and you can clearly see the antenna mount on Jackie's side of the limo, it's blurred in your photo. When I checked against this photo you can tell that it is the antenna on Jackie's side, just a coincidence that it appears to come out of Hills sock. Check the distance from the far back corner of the limo up to the antenna on the Miller photo and compare to the distance in the above posted photo. Well, in the Miller photo there does appear to be an antenna on JFK's side of the car, as well and Hill's foot is hooked around it. You see, the Newman photo has Jackie's antenna and the one in question almost lined up perfectly. The difference being is that Jackie's antenna is a bit shorter and the top of JFK's antenna is a tad forward and when traveling into the wind - an antenna should bend slighty backwards if anything else. It's just one of those flukes that both line up almost perfectly. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 If you look at the curve of the shoe the image appears to show the "LEFT" shoe not the right, as i had previously mentioned. I would imagine it would be quite difficult to bend your left leg up behind your back in that position and still be able to keep your balance in a moving car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 If you look at the curve of the shoe the image appears to show the "LEFT" shoe not the right, as i had previously mentioned.I would imagine it would be quite difficult to bend your left leg up behind your back in that position and still be able to keep your balance in a moving car. Right, Robin. It is a hand, NOT A SHOE. If anyone will bother to find an ORIGINAL UNRETOUCHED print, it will all be clear. It is not really important except to show how retouched or fake photos perpetuate myths. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) If you look at the curve of the shoe the image appears to show the "LEFT" shoe not the right, as i had previously mentioned.I would imagine it would be quite difficult to bend your left leg up behind your back in that position and still be able to keep your balance in a moving car. The angle at which the foot is seen and possibly combined with the illumination of the leather spreading out/washing out onto the sole of the shoe due to the lightening of the photo - only makes it look like a left foot. Bill Miller Right, Robin. It is a hand, NOT A SHOE. If anyone will botherto find an ORIGINAL UNRETOUCHED print, it will all be clear. It is not really important except to show how retouched or fake photos perpetuate myths. Jack Jack, please post your untouched Miller print that led to your conclusion. Like I said before, it is impossible for a hand to be pressed that far into the President's seat, thus your interpretation cannot be correct or your print has been retouched as well. Bill Miller Edited July 15, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) Could someone please repost the 'new' image showing the area as a shoe, please, but with Clints whole body showing ? EDIT:: BTW a quite brilliant observation, Robin EDIT2:: a collection of hands Edited July 15, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Thanks for the hand photo, John...a good comparison. Jack If you look at the curve of the shoe the image appears to show the "LEFT" shoe not the right, as i had previously mentioned.I would imagine it would be quite difficult to bend your left leg up behind your back in that position and still be able to keep your balance in a moving car. The angle at which the foot is seen and possibly combined with the illumination of the leather spreading out/washing out onto the sole of the shoe due to the lightening of the photo - only makes it look like a left foot. Bill Miller Right, Robin. It is a hand, NOT A SHOE. If anyone will botherto find an ORIGINAL UNRETOUCHED print, it will all be clear. It is not really important except to show how retouched or fake photos perpetuate myths. Jack Jack, please post your untouched Miller print that led to your conclusion. Like I said before, it is impossible for a hand to be pressed that far into the President's seat, thus your interpretation cannot be correct or your print has been retouched as well. Bill Miller I have no unretouched print! I scanned the large halftone in SatEvePost. The one that shows the JFK hand, and Hill with his right hand on his right knee. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now